The document analyzes the use of metadiscourse markers in 124 argumentative essays written by Pakistani undergraduate students. It finds that interactive metadiscourse markers were used more frequently than interactional markers. Transition markers were the most common, while endophoric markers were least frequent. The results have pedagogical implications for understanding writing conventions and developing students' writing skills through appropriate use of metadiscourse devices.

1. Volume 24 - Issue 4 (2020)
https://doi.org/10.37200/IJPR/V24I4/PR201013
Corresponding author: Shafqat, A. asmarashafqat@neduet.edu.pk
Manuscript submitted: 18 Nov 2019, Manuscript revised: 09 Dec 2019, Accepted for publication: 19 Jan 2020
341
A Corpus Analysis of Metadiscourse Markers Used
in Argumentative Essays by Pakistani
Undergraduate Students
Asmara Shafqat
Department of Humanities, NED University of Engineering & Technology,
Karachi, Pakistan, University Road, Karachi-75270, Pakistan
Faiza Arain
Department of Humanities, NED University of Engineering & Technology,
Karachi, Pakistan, University Road, Karachi-75270, Pakistan
Maheen Tufail Dahraj
Department of Humanities, NED University of Engineering & Technology,
Karachi, Pakistan, University Road, Karachi-75270, Pakistan
Abstract---Metadiscourse is considered as one of the significant rhetorical
features and strategies in the production of any piece of written or spoken
discourse. It establishes a relationship of the writer with the audience in
any communication process. The present study aimed at determining the
frequency distribution of metadiscourse markers in argumentative essays of
undergraduate students in a private sector university. This quantitative
study adopted Hyland’s (2005) Interpersonal model of Metadiscourse. A
corpus based software AntConc 3.5.7 was applied for a total of 124
argumentative essays. Finding of the study showed that the frequency of
interactive metadiscourse markers was higher than interactional markers.
It has also been observed that the most frequently used markers were
transition markers whereas endophoric markers were used with less
frequency. The results of the study have a few pedagogical implications. It
highlights the importance of metadiscourse devices in learning and teaching
writing skills in English Language Teaching (ELT) context and help to
understand the norm of discourse markers. Moreover, metadiscourse
analysis would benefit English language teachers to develop the writing
skills of learners with appropriate use of metadiscourse devices.
Keywords---argumentative writing, corpus, discourse devices,
metadiscourse.
Introduction
Writing is a social engagement process where writers engage their audience to convey
their meanings. Writers use cues and indicators in their writing, which assist readers
to understand and respond the text accordingly (Kumpf, 2000). Hyland (2004a;

2. 342
2005b), described these cues and indicators as Metadiscourse markers. The effective
use of metadiscourse markers helps readers to organize the content in a meaningful
manner and develop an association with the reader. Students at all educational levels
are required to write, however, at the tertiary level they are more often involved in
different genres of writing such as essays, summaries, letters, reports, proposals and
the like. Therefore, improving the quality of learning has become an important concern
among undergraduate students.
The term Metadiscourse can be described as “the cover term for the self-reflective
expressions used to negotiate interactional meanings in a text, assisting the writer (or
speaker) to express a viewpoint and engage with readers as members of a particular
community” (Hyland, 2005; Woodlove & Vurly, 2017). These markers are also
considered as an essential rhetorical feature in any type of discourse (Chambliss &
Garner, 1996; Hyland, 1996).
Harris (1958), used the term metadiscourse to offer a way to understand language
usage, representing a writers’ or speakers’ insight of a text to an audience. Writers for
instance, Williams (1981), Kopple (1985), and Crismore (1989), explored it further and
they collected a number of discourse markers. Metadiscourse encompasses the idea
that language is not only about exchanging information, but it also takes into account
the perceptions and attitudes of the interlocutors (Hyland, 2005). Metadiscourse
organizes the text in such a way that it attempts to guide the audience about the
writer’s perception. It engages readers and writers in a meaningful conversation,
increases the readability, and signals the attitude of the writer towards its audience and
reader (Hyland, 2005).
The researcher observed in her own teaching context that students had lots of problems
in using metadiscourse markers. Previous research studies (Asghar, 2015; Mu et al.
2015; Lu, 2011; Dafouz-Milne, 2008; Hyland, 1999) also showed that students have
limited knowledge of metadiscourse markers, while certain metadiscourse markers are
commonly used by them which implies a common rhetorical style. For that purpose,
this research was conducted to create awareness about metadiscourse markers, which
in turn would boost the writing quality. Many studies are being conducted on
metadiscourse around the globe, although in Pakistan research in this domain remains
limited. Therefore, this current research aims to determine the use of metadiscourse
markers in the writing of undergraduate students’ in Pakistani context.
The purpose of the current research was to examine how students perceive their
opinions, point of views and beliefs and engage with the audience through the
deployment of metadiscourse markers in their essays.
The research study reflects on the following questions to be answered:
 What are the types of Metadiscourse markers employed by undergraduate
students at the Public Sector University?
 What is the highest and lowest number of frequencies of Metadiscourse markers
in Argumentative essays?
The significance of the study is threefold. First, the notion of metadiscourse has been
significant in many ways; it expands the horizon of the text by characterizing it beyond

3. 343
the ideational dimension to its functions. It does not only include an external reality,
but the language itself depicts the writer’s stance in the text and engages in a social
relation with the audience. Secondly, linguists can easily capture the stylistic deviation
and frequency based on the information about the usage of cohesive devices in the text.
Lastly, the findings from the research will help teachers to assess their students’
written compositions and to make them aware of rhetorical conventions in academic
writing skills. Further, it helps teachers, curriculum developers, and material
developers in syllabus designing and error analysis. In addition to this, it would benefit
learners to evaluate and improve their writing accordingly.
Literature Review
Around the globe, there are a considerable number of researches related to
metadiscourse markers across different genre in academic written discourse. Studies
have recommended the significance of metadiscourse markers in academic research
articles (Hyland, 2001), postgraduate dissertations (Bunto, 1999), PhD dissertations
(Bunton, 1999; Smith et al., 2018), medical and library text (Mostafavi & Tajalli, 2012),
popular and professional science discourse (Crismore & Farnsworth, 1990), language &
culture based articles (Moreno, 1997; Ozdemir & Longo 2014), as a rhetorical art
(Crismore, 1989), metadiscourse as a writing technique (Cheng & Steffensen, 1996), as
a feature of persuasive writing (Crismore et al., 1993), ESL essays (Intaraprawat &
Steffensen, 1995) and CEO’s letter (Hyland, 1998).
Halliday (1998), explained it as a varied collection of features which facilitate to relate a
discourse or text to its perspective and context of supporting readers to attach,
systematize, and understand matter in a way chosen by the author and with regard to
the understandings and principles of a specific discourse community. In addition,
Hyland (2005), proposed the interpersonal model of metadiscourse that differentiates
interactive and interactional marker. The former markers are used to plan a text in a
unified and coherent manner and reflect the author’s meaning explicitly. On the other
hand, later are concerned with establishing a relationship with an audience and
drawing readers in an argument to involve them in the overall process of
communication. The usage of both types of marker varies across disciplines and in
different genre of writing.
Cheng & Steffensen (1996), explored the use metadiscourse marker as a strategy to
advance students writing skills and how it reflects the quality of writing. A pre and
post-test was conducted on a controlled and experimental group to examine the usage
of different types of markers in a text. The results have shown the significant effect on
the experimental group and it was suggested that use of metadiscourse markers not
only strength the textual features but it improves interpersonal dimensions of text as
well.
Hyland & Tse (2004), argued that through metadiscourse markers writer can
understand the use of interpersonal markers that writer use in their proposition and it
discovers the rhetorical and social conventions. Achieving the purpose, 240 L2
dissertations from various disciplines were analyzed. The results have discovered that
writers employed slightly more interactive metadiscourse markers than interactional. It
was also recommended in their study that use of rhetorical features is independent of
the writer’s style and it is more applicable in the context in which it occurs.

4. 344
Kan (2016), attempted to determine the types and frequencies of interactional
metadiscourse in different sections of research papers of Turkish education and
literature. It was revealed that Turkish language education used more interactional
marker than in the domain of literature. Wang & Zang (2016), compared the different
frequency and usage of metadiscourse in mathematical and linguistic academic papers.
The result showed that more interactive markers are used in the abstracts of both
disciplined than interpersonal markers.
Bal-Gezegin (2016), study revealed interpersonal metadiscourse features were
noticeably higher in the English as compare to Turkish book review. In addition to this,
variation was found in the use of hedges between Turkish and English. Zhang (2016),
conducted a multidimensional analysis of various written registers. A reflexive model of
metadiscourse was used. The result was interpreted in three dimensions: writer’s
presences, text presentation and readers’ guidance. It was revealed that more
metadiscourse markers were used in informative and abstract register than narrative
and concrete registers. Also, it was revealed that more markers were used for reader’s
guidance.
Asghar (2015), conducted a research to explore metadiscourse and contrastive rhetoric
academic writing of tertiary level students. Through analysis it was revealed that
interactive and interpersonal markers were not used effectively. It was suggested that
awareness should be given to language learners about metadiscourse markers in order
to make their written composition well structured.
Ozdemir & Longo (2014), investigated cultural aspect of metadiscourse markers
between Turkish and US language learners. The results revealed both markers were
higher in American culture and cultural differences were also found. Anwerdeen et al.
(2013), examined the frequency distribution of metadiscourse markers and explore the
error in using metadiscourse in writing. Results showed that student use textual
discourse markers more than interpersonal markers. In addition to this, it was also
found that the students mixed the usage of metadiscourse markers as preposition and
adverbs in their writing.
Similarly, other research was conducted by Mu et al. (2015), on English and Chinese
corpus. It was concluded that both corpus use more interactive than interactional
metadiscourse makers. Similarly, Hyland (2010), investigated 240 PhD and MS thesis
consists of four million words. Using MonoConc software, 300 common metadiscourse
markers from Hyland (2005), framework was selected. The overall results conveyed that
students somewhat used more interactive markers as compared to interactional.
To conclude, metadiscourse is considered as an essential feature in promoting
communication between readers and writers, negotiating propositions, and building
relationship with an audience. Yet regardless of this, a little has been explored about
the way metadiscourse markers are being used in Pakistani context. This paper aims
to address this gap.
The research has used the Hyland’s Interpersonal model of metadiscourse (2005). In
his book Metadiscourse-Exploring interaction in writing a comprehensive model has
been presented which many researchers have used. Hyland (2005) has further

5. 345
categorized interactive in five subcategories: transitions logical connectives, frame
markers, endophoric markers, evidential and code glosses. Interpersonal
metadiscourse has five subcategories: hedge, boosters, attitude markers, engagement
markers or relation markers and self-mentions.
The table 1 shows the first subcategory in interactive category is transition; it is used to
make connections at phrasal and sentential level, such as in addition, but, thus, and so
on. It provides cohesion by making explicitly clear and signals how one idea is related
to another. The second sub-category is frame markers. It is further categorized into
sequencing, label stages, announce goals and topic shifts. It includes phrases for
example firstly, finally, in a nutshell, and phrases to announce goals for example, now
you have to and my purpose here is to.
Another category is endophoric markers, which refer information to the other parts of
the text such as, noted above, see fig 1, and discussed earlier. The next sub-category is
evidential it is the information that has been cited from other sources or outside the
text such as according to X/Y, 2009 Z states, beliefs, suggests and literatures shows.
The last sub-category is Code glosses “supply additional information, by rephrasing,
explaining or elaborating what has been said and to ensure the reader is able to recover
the writer’s intended meaning” (Hyland, 2005), such as in other words, it can be defined
as, and for example.
On the other hand, the next main category is interactional markers, which includes
hedges. These words assist writers in “allowing information to be presented as an
opinion rather than a fact and therefore open that position to negotiation” (Hyland,
2005), such as possible, might, could and perhaps. The second sub category is booster
that refers to the extent writer is certain about his or her own argument and position in
the text. The writers not only acknowledge diverse point of view, but he or she confronts

6. 346
them with his single alternative and confident point of view such as I believe, certainly,
it is clear, the fact that and it is clear. The next sub-category is attitude markers. It
reflects the writer’s attitude to propositions and it “convey surprise, agreement,
importance, obligation, frustration, and so on” (Hyland 2005). For examples,
surprisingly, I agree, prefer, hopefully and unfortunately. Furthermore, the second last
sub-category is relational or engagement markers; it addresses the audience attention
and overtly involves them in the meaningful exchange. In addition, it is also used to
create an impression of authority, integrity and credibility (Hyland, 2005), with the
readers as an audience such as let us, note that and you. Finally, the last sub category
is self-mention as its name suggests it refers to the writer’s existence in the text
through first- person pronouns as I or possessive adjectives such as me, mine and ours
(Hyland, 2005).
Methodology
The present study employed quantitative research as it contains statistical data
analysis. A corpus of 124 essays by Pakistani students was analyzed. They were
currently enrolled in the first semester of their academic discipline. Quantitative
research analysis was applied to determine the frequency distribution of metadiscourse
markers in the argumentative essays.
The corpus can be defined as “a large collection of naturally occurring authentic text,
stored in an electronic base of millions of words that have actually occurred in real life”
(Cutting, 2015). It consists of both written and spoken corpora. In this study, written
corpus is used in the form of essays and it consists of 124 argumentative essays by
undergraduate students. The nature of the essays was argumentative. Students were
enrolled in a four-year program at a public sector university. It was the first semester,
which is considered as a foundation course entitled functional English. The collected
corpus was named as CUPSW (Corpus of undergraduate Pakistani students’ writing).
The written corpus consists of 27539 tokens and 2147 types. It was a self-made corpus
as the essay writing assignment was given to students. They were told to write
argumentative essay of approximately 250 words. The topic for the essay was to agree
or disagree if online learning is as good as face-to-face learning.
AntConc 3.5.7 software was used to examine the frequency of metadiscourse markers
in written discourse. AntConc is “a freeware, multi-platform, multi-purpose corpus
analysis toolkit, designed by the author for specific use in the classroom”. Its features
include concordance tool, cluster N-grams, collocates and frequency and keyword list.
In the study, corpus analysis was used to find all the occurrences of words in a corpus.
For that purpose, AntConc was used it’s a computer package software known as a
concordance program (Cutting, 2015). It not only shows database of words in a corpus,
but it also examines the “co-text to the most frequent lexical phrases and grammar
within same line” (Cutting, 2015).
The corpus was collected in the form of essays and converted into electronic corpus.
Wordlist was made by adapting the Hyland’s list of Interpersonal Metadiscourse
markers. Then, AntConc concordance software was applied to count the frequency of
the words from Hyland’s (2005) list of Interpersonal Metadiscourse markers. In
addition, concordance was checked to ensure the context of Metadiscourse markers.

7. 347
Results and Discussion
If we look at table 2, the subcategories of interactive metadiscourse are transitions,
frame markers, endophoric markers, evidential and code glosses which have 134, 1599,
28, 88 and 106 occurrences respectively.
In addition to this, in table 3, the subcategories of interactional discourse are hedges,
boosters, attitude markers, engagement markers and self-mention which have 166,
168, 140, 538, 286 occurrences respectively. The results also revealed that transition
markers are found to be the most frequently used in interactive metadiscourse followed
by engagement markers and self-mentions. Whereas, the least frequent markers are
endophoric marker as it has only 28 hits and they contribute only 1.4 %.

8. 348
According to table 4, the findings demonstrate that the frequency of interaction
Metadiscourse markers was higher than interactional markers in argumentative essays.
Table 4 shows that the frequency of interactive metadiscourse was 1955 (60.09%) and
for interactional metadiscourse, 1298 (39.9%). The percentage gap of metadiscourse
devices was 20.19. The findings of the research were parallel to other metadiscourse
related studies such as Wang & Zang (2016), Asghar (2015), Mu et al. (2015),
Anwerdeen et al. (2013), Hyland & Tse (2004). The results of these studies claimed the
frequency of interactive metadiscourse markers were higher than interactional.
Conversely, the results of the study were in contrast with Bal-Gezegin (2016) and Kan
(2016), wherein the frequency of interactive metadiscourse was comparatively higher.
Mohamed & Rashid (2017), claimed that the effective use of interactional metadiscourse
markers is dependent on the writing ability of a writer and he also added “experienced
writers are expectedly writing with more interactional metadiscourse as compare to
inexperienced writer especially undergraduate” (p. 217). It is quite relevant that
students in the current study were also fresh undergraduate who have just started
their academics. Therefore, it could be one of the reasons of less usage of interactional
markers in their writing as they might not be aware of rhetorical conventions of writing.
Usually at this point students are more inclined towards grammatical accuracy and
academic vocabulary and they pay less attention to the interactive dimension of their
writing. This can also be taken in other ways, for example, when students are given
specific word limit; students are bound to use less interactional marker to make their
arguments clearly framed and to reduce the chances of refutation and maximize the
possibility of acceptance in their proposed arguments.
The result of the study also revealed that students used all metadiscourse markers in
their writing, but the frequency of a few metadiscourse markers is much higher than
others. The most frequent markers in the sub-category are transitions; it constitutes
81.7% of the entire corpus. It reflects how the writers guide readers to move from one
idea to another through examples, comparison, time, results and the like. It is quite
evident that students have used transitional signals to make their argument clear and
logically organized for their audience. An interesting pattern in the findings is the
usage of engagement or relation markers in the corpus. Hyland (2010) defined as it
“explicitly address readers, either by selectively focusing their attention or by including
them as participants in the text though second person pronouns, imperatives, question
form and asides” p. 129). It is the second most frequently used markers as it reflects

9. 349
how the students explicitly engage the reader into their arguments by creating and
maintaining relationships with them through various ways, for example, let us, you, our
and like.
The use of metadiscourse markers implies how we project ourselves in any piece of
writing by signaling our position, opinions, attitudes toward the content and the
audience of the text. It helps to build the relationship with an audience by achieving
credibility. This is an important finding in the understanding of the different functions
of a text and the use of metadiscourse markers in the rhetorical characterization of any
text. The results suggested that awareness should be given to language learners
regarding the usage of sub categories of markers not only to improve their writing skills
but to make their writing more interactive and reader friendly.
The study also comes with a few limitations Firstly, because of the time constraint, this
study was limited to only one Public Sector university. Secondly, it has used small
corpus because the assignment of essay writing was a part of sessional activities.
Lastly, it was limited to one classroom only.
Conclusion and Implication
The research aimed to determine the use of metadiscourse marker in the writing of
undergraduate students’ writing in Pakistani context. From the results of the study, it
is concluded that ESL undergraduate students used more interactive markers than
interactional markers. The research made several contributions. Firstly, it will help
teachers to teach metadiscourse markers in their foundation or basic English language
course. This would not only improve their efficiency and proficiency in writing, but it
also helps them to add a variety as well. In addition, the knowledge of metadiscourse
markers will help learners to analyze language for social interaction.
The results of the study have a number of pedagogical implications. It highlights the
importance of metadiscourse devices in learning and teaching writing skills in English
Language Teaching (ELT) context, and helps understand the norm of discourse
markers. Metadiscourse markers enhance the quality of writing, therefore this study
will help other researchers explore it further in multiple dimensions and in different
genres as well.
In addition to this, it provides a new dimension to the novice and experienced
researcher to use corpus analysis in multiple domains to get an insight of the functions
that language perform in a variety of contexts. It provides lexicographers and
grammarians “objective, evidence-based description of patterns and function” (Cutting,
2015). It assists textbook writers and material designers to pick texts based on
authentic language for students. Most importantly, language teachers can guide
students by showing some concordance lines to make them identify their errors and
recognize the most frequently used words in their writing. Last but not the least,
Cutting (2015) claimed that corpus analysis is the best way to analyze language
learners’ needs.
References
[1] Anwardeen, N. H., Luyee, E. O., Gabriel, J. I., & Kalajahi, S. A. R. (2013). An
Analysis: The Usage of Metadiscourse in Argumentative Writing by Malaysian
Tertiary Level of Students. English Language Teaching, 6(9), 83-96.

10. 350
[2] Asghar, J. (2015). Metadiscourse and Contrastive Rhetoric in Academic Writing:
Evaluation of a small academic corpus. Journal of Language Teaching and
Research, 6(2), 317-326. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0602.11
[3] Bal-Gezegina, B. (2016). A Corpus-based Investigation of Metadiscourse in
Academic Book. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 713-718.
[4] Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in Ph. D theses. English for
specific purposes, 18, S41-S56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00022-2
[5] Carretero, M. (2016). Cutting, J.(2015). Pragmatics: A resource book for students.
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.29.2.10car
[6] Chambliss, M. J., & Garner, R. (1996). Do adults change their minds after reading
persuasive text?. Written Communication, 13(3), 291-313.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0741088396013003001
[7] Cheng, X., & Steffensen, M. S. (1996). Metadiscourse: A technique for improving
student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 149-181.
[8] Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act (Vol. 17).
Peter Lang Pub Incorporated.
[9] Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional
science discourse. The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse, 118-136.
[10] Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in
persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university
students. Written communication, 10(1), 39-71.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0741088393010001002
[11] Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal
metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-
linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
[12] Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). Things and relations. Reading science: Critical and
functional perspectives on discourses of science, 185-235.
[13] Harris, S. A. (1958). Differentiation of various Egyptian aeolian microenvironments
by mechanical composition. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 28(2), 164-174.
https://doi.org/10.1306/74D70790-2B21-11D7-8648000102C1865D
[14] Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research
articles. Written communication, 13(2), 251-281.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0741088396013002004
[15] Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO's
letter. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 35(2), 224-244.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002194369803500203
[16] Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in
introductorycoursebooks. English for specific purposes, 18(1), 3-26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2
[17] Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research
articles. English for specific purposes, 20(3), 207-226.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0
[18] Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate
writing. Journal of second language writing, 13(2), 133-151.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
[19] Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing
London. England: Continuum.
[20] Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic
Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143.

11. 351
[21] Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A
reappraisal. Applied linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
[22] Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M. S. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and
poor ESL essays. Journal of second language writing, 4(3), 253-272.
https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90012-8
[23] Kan, M. O. (2016). The use of interactional metadiscourse: a comparison of articles
on Turkish education and literature.
[24] Kopple, W. J. V. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College
composition and communication, 82-93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609
[25] Kumpf, E. P. (2000). Visual metadiscourse: Designing the considerate
text. Technical communication quarterly, 9(4), 401-424.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10572250009364707
[26] Lu, L. (2011). Metadiscourse and genre learning: English argumentative writing by
Chinese undergraduates (Unpublished Thesis). University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam,
Hong Kong SAR.http://dx.doi.org/10.5353/th_b4599670
[27] Mohamed, A. F., & Rashid, R. A. (2017). The metadiscourse markers in good
undergraduate writers’ essays corpus. International Journal of English
Linguistics, 7(6), 213-220. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n6p213
[28] Moreno, A. I. (1997). Genre constraints across languages: Causal metatext in
Spanish and English RAs. English for specific purposes, 16(3), 161-179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00023-3
[29] Mostafavi, M., & Tajalli, G. (2012). Metadiscoursal Markers in Medical and Literary
Texts. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(3), 64.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v2n3p64
[30] Mu, C., Zhang, L. J., Ehrich, J., & Hong, H. (2015). The use of metadiscourse for
knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 20, 135-148.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.09.003
[31] Ozdemir, N. O., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-
cultural study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59-63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.011
[32] Smith, V., Florence, K., & Maria, F. (2018). Semantics in cultural perspective
overview. Linguistics and Culture Review, 2(1), 24-31.
https://doi.org/10.37028/lingcure.v2n1.9
[33] Wang, L., & Zhang, Y. (2016). An analysis of meta-discourse in the abstracts of
English academic papers. Global Journal of Human-Social Science: Linguistics and
Education, 16(9).
[34] Williams, E. (1981). On the notions" Lexically related" and" Head of a
word". Linguistic inquiry, 12(2), 245-274.
[35] Woodlove, G. M., & Vurly, M. E. (2017). Political discourse approach applied the
current study issue occurred. Linguistics and Culture Review, 1(1), 26-37.
https://doi.org/10.37028/lingcure.v1n1.3
[36] Zhang, M. (2016). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across
written registers. Discourse Studies, 18(2), 204-222.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461445615623907